Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Organizers: T. Eighmy (Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville); M.
Gautam (Univ. of Nevada, Reno); H. Gobstein (APLU); C.
Keane (Washington State Univ.)
Making a Difference:
Effective Execution of
Transdisciplinary Research
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
Morgantown, West Virginia
1
Our Presenters
Chris Keane, Vice President for Research, Washington State
University (Also presenting on behalf of Tom Kalil, Deputy
Director for Technology and Innovation, White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy)
Dan Carder, Director, Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines
and Emissions, West Virginia University
Robert McGrath, Director, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder
Taylor Eighmy, Vice Chancellor for Research and
Engagement, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Our Questions
Chris Keane/ Overview and (for Tom Kalil) Federal
Perspective: What is a Grand Challenge? What are the
challenges facing large and small centers in addressing
these complex transdisciplinary problems?
Dan Carder/Small Center Perspective: To be successful,
what should small centers in the early phase of
development keep in mind?
Robert McGrath/Large Center Perspective: What lessons
would a large center director pass on to colleagues desiring
to grow smaller centers? What should a VPR or other
senior leader look for when selecting a particular smaller
center for investment?
Taylor Eighmy/Industrial Perspective: How can a center
structure facilitate industrial involvement in university
research and advance innovation and entrepreneurship
generally? What is the most important thing a center brings
to the table other than technical capability? The ability to
manage large projects? Other?
Session agenda
• Overview (C. Keane) (10 minutes)
• Federal perspective (C. Keane for T. Kalil) (10 minutes)
• Small Center perspective (D. Carder) (10 minutes)
• Large Center perspective (R. McGrath) (10 minutes)
• Industrial perspective (T. Eighmy) (10 minutes)
• Discussion (25 minutes)
Thank you in advance for your attention and
participation!
Overview: Grand Challenges and Their
Pursuit in University Centers
Dr. Christopher J. Keane
Vice President for Research
Professor of Physics
Washington State University
Making a Difference:
Effective Execution of
Transdisciplinary Research
Presented to:
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
5
This session builds on a “Grand Challenges”
session held at the 2015 APLU annual meeting
The Obama Administration has articulated a
number of “Grand Challenges”
T. Kalil
What are the attributes of a Grand Challenge?
• Ambitious but achievable
• Requires advances in science, technology, and
innovation
• Has the potential to capture the public’s imagination
• Has a “Goldilocks” level of specificity. For example,
”improving the human condition” is not a Grand
Challenge because it is too broad.
See further discussion in new book by B.
Shneiderman (Univ. of Md.)
T. Kalil
What are some of the potential benefits of a
Grand Challenge?
• Help create the industries and jobs of the future
• Expand the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves
and the world around us
• Help tackle important problems related to energy, health,
education, the environment, national security, and global
development, etc.
• Serve as a “North Star” for collaboration between the public
and private sectors, and between researchers in different
disciplines
• As science and technology have advanced – the most
interesting question is no longer “what can we do” – but
“what should we do.” Identifying Grand Challenges helps
us answer that question.
T. Kalil
How are universities getting involved?
T. Kalil
Identify new Grand Challenges.
Participate in existing Grand Challenges. For example, University
of Pittsburgh and CMU made commitments of over $100 million to
support the BRAIN initiative. See
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/o
stp/brain_fact_sheet_9_30_2014_final.pdf
Participate in programs such as the Grand Challenge Scholars
Program. Over 120 Engineering Deans have committed to
participate in this program, which allows undergraduates to
organize their coursework, research, service-learning, international
experiences, and entrepreneurial activities in the pursuit of a Grand
Challenge. See
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/14373/15549/15785.aspx
Establish a process that allows multidisciplinary teams of faculty to
identify Grand Challenges. Provide institutional support and
include these in capital campaigns.
Examples of University Grand Challenges
T. Kalil
• Cure at least 1 cancer;
Develop novel
prevention methods
for neurodegenerative
disease; Cure at least
one pediatric disease
• Transition LA to 100%
renewable energy and
100% locally sourced
water by 2050
NAS 2015 “Convergence” Report defines degrees of
disciplinarity (text below drawn from p. 44-45 of report)
Category Distinguishing Features (from NAS "Convergence" report)
Unidisciplinary Researchers from single discipline address a topic or theme
Multidisciplinary
Two or more disciplines focus on a question or topic.
Disciplines remain separate and existing structure of
knowledge not questioned. Individuals in different disciplines
work separtely, with reports compiled together in
encyclopedic fashion and not synthesized.
Interdisciplinary
Key defining concept is integration- a blending of diverse
inputs that is greater than the sum of the parts. Research is
team-based and introduces social integration into the
process, requiring attention to project management and
communications dynamics.
Transdisciplinary
Problem oriented research that crosses the boundary of
academic, public, and private spheres. Includes learning, joint
work, and knowledge aimed at solving "real world"
problems. Goes beyond interdisciplinary combinations of
existing approaches to foster new worldviews or domains.
WSU “Grand Challenges” define the university’s strategic
research agenda and areas for investment opportunity
“Grand
Challenges”
• Sustaining Health
• Food/Energy/Water
Nexus
• Opportunity and Equity
• Smart Systems
• National Security
Strategic
Reallocation (5%
of operating)-
Research and
Student Success
Focused
Investments
(up to
$1M/yr each)
Defined investments areas (and others) operated as
centers- how is this best done?
• Functional Genomics
• Community health
analytics
• Health disparities
• Green stormwater
• Nutritional genomics
• Smart Cities
Examples of Small and Large Centers
Small
WSU-ESIC: The Energy Systems Innovation Center is made up of more
than 45 members (15 faculty, 20 affiliate faculty, 2 staff, and >8 industry
representatives). The center resides within the School of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science. The center bring in ~$3-5M/year in
research grants from federal, state and industry resources and has
operating costs of ~$300K. ESIC will be the model used for WSU
investments funded by the strategic reallocation process.
Large
UT-IACMI (established in 2015): University of Tennessee led Institute for
Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation is an NNMI consortium
with 123 members from 7 institutions. Funding profile - $189 million in
funding from partners and $70 million from the Department of Energy
(EERE). It is managed by a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization
established by the UT Research Foundation.
Question for our panel: How should “Centers” or “Institutes”
be effectively managed to address transdisciplinary, “Grand
Challenge” like research problems?
• Issues for "small" centers
Faculty leadership and management expertise
Providing sufficient administrative support to get the center
launched
Incentives: Center vs. departmental grant submission and
allocation of F&A
Credit reporting
Promotion and tenure for interdisciplinary work
• Issues for “large” centers
Project management expertise, including more sophisticated
administrative support
Degree of independence from College/central units
F&A arrangements- special incentives
Impact on teaching and other faculty responsibilities
Sustainability and effective communication
is a key issue for all centers
Comments on university pursuit of “Grand
Challenges” via centers
• Sponsor needs to ensure their funding is a significant
fraction of the center- otherwise sponsor goals may be lost
• Need to distinguish between faculty who truly want to
work together and those who just want to “look good”- i.e.
need to distinguish true collaborative proposals from
“staple jobs”
• First 3 years of centers are often less productive, as the
team gets started- years 4-5 can be more productive
• 3-5 researchers working together with a common funding
source that is a significant fraction of the center or
laboratory budget is often effective
• Universities can be effective identifying emerging areas
where innovation is needed but no sponsor is present
T. Kalil
Session agenda
• Overview (C. Keane) (10 minutes)
• Federal perspective (C. Keane for T. Kalil) (10 minutes)
• Small Center perspective (D. Carder) (10 minutes)
• Large Center perspective (R. McGrath) (10 minutes)
• Industrial perspective (T. Eighmy) (10 minutes)
• Discussion (25 minutes)
Thank you in advance for your attention and
participation!
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
CAFEE Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions
Transdisciplinary Research and Small
Centers
APLU Council on Research Morgantown, WV August 2, 2016
Daniel Carder
Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions (CAFEE) West Virginia University
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
CAFEE Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions
• Founded in 1989 with US DOE Funding
• Examine the Impact of Alternative-fueled
Engine and Vehicle Technology
• 25 Years of Research, Development and
Innovation
• > $100 Million in Revenue
• Mix of Federal Government, State
Government, and Industrial/Commercial
Sponsors
• “Blue-collar” researchers that challenge
students to think broader
• Core Faculty (9) and Staff (15), Graduate
Students (30-50), Temporary Staff and
Undergraduate Students
CAFEE
19
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
CAFEE Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions
• Sustainability - Very critical. This drives the long term viability. This drives
the composition of the group and its symbiotic relationship among the
rainmakers (has to be plural) in the Center.
• Even small centers need a dedicated professional(s) (managers of sorts) for
operational details.
• Faculty role statements should allow for them to publish in relevant journals;
not just the ones that have traditionally been targeted by a specific
discipline. The Provost needs to take the lead on this issue. For example,
faculty doing cyber security work in Political Science should be given credit
for publishing in journals, such as IEEE or any other relevant journal.
• Pool resources.
Keys to (Our) Success- Leadership and
Organization
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
CAFEE Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions
• Quality is trumps everything. Quality people - faculty, scientists/engineers, administration support, technicians, students. Students need to be hand-picked from a world-wide pool.
• While it is important for the institution to provide resources through reprogrammed IDC recovery (one example), this support can never form the backbone. It is simply a supplement. Continual inflow of grants/contracts is the best guarantee if sustainability.
• Funding support should be a portfolio; no different than our own investment portfolio. Federal (big money) , state, industry, Foundations, philanthropy.
• Use your uniqueness to your advantage, small is nimble (not limited)….
• Stimulate participation through provided services
Keys to (Our) Success- Resources
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
CAFEE Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions
• Comradery and respect for the fact that no one person can do it
alone...shorty-term center, yes; long-term sustainable center, no.
• Everyone must have a voice – this is critical to ownership.
• Unite from bottom upward – “lower-level” commitment will largely determine
success
• External communication (industry/program managers) – don’t always talk,
be willing to listen.
Keys to (Our) Success- Communications
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
CAFEE Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Keys to Success
Session agenda
• Overview (C. Keane) (10 minutes)
• Federal perspective (C. Keane for T. Kalil) (10 minutes)
• Small Center perspective (D. Carder) (10 minutes)
• Large Center perspective (R. McGrath) (10 minutes)
• Industrial perspective (T. Eighmy) (10 minutes)
• Discussion (25 minutes)
Thank you in advance for your attention and
participation!
Effective Execution of
Transdisciplinary Research
Dr. Robert McGrath
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Institute
University of Colorado
Making a Difference:
Presented to:
APLU Council on Research
August 2, 2016
25
Large University Centers & Institutes
Can provide vision and focus for particular R&D themes
Can foster teamwork, provide infrastructure to address large
scale or grand challenge level problem.
Can facilitate development of large, multi-investigator, multi-
institution proposals and award execution.
Can provide comprehensive R&D programs for particular federal
agencies or industry sectors.
If partnered well with appropriate academic colleges and
departments, large R&D institutes can contribute greatly to
• Educational opportunities for undergraduate & graduate
students
• Recruitment and retention of outstanding faculty
Strategic investments can help small/medium sized centers grow
into larger, more productive institutes with sustained research
impact and continued reputation enhancement for the University
Administrative Considerations for
Large Research Centers & Institutes
If a federal agency says it’s a Center or Institute, then it is!
Examples:
• NSF Science & Engineering Centers
• NIH Cancer Centers and Comprehensive Cancer Institutes,
focused awards (e.g. P50s, P30s, . . .)
• DOE Research Hubs, Bioscience Engr. Centers, IACMI . . .
• FFRDCs & UARCs
In establishing any Center or Institute, be sure to clearly define
• The University’s annual budgetary commitments from the
Central Administration, Colleges, Departments and any other
internal unit and the duration of those financial commitments
• An annual review process
• Provisions for sun-setting the Institute
• Provisions under which the Institute may persist in occupying
University research space (e.g. define the academic,
educational, scientific & financial mission objectives and
associated metrics)
Administration & Management Structures for
Large Centers & Institutes
Most academic Research Centers and Institutes function very effectively
under OMB Circular A-21 financial compliance guidelines that typically
are applied to all other R&D at the University.
Some large center have found it advantageous to operate as a 501(c) 3
with not-for-profit designation under FAR 31.2.
Because research execution, financial management, industry
partnerships and technology transfer have not gone well on a few large
federally sponsored R&D Institutes, some federal agencies are requiring
formation of a 501 (c) 3 as a precondition for selected large proposals
and awards.
Note that “not-for-profit” designation does not prohibit annual revenues
in excess of expenditures.
Many University Research Foundations function as 501 (c) 3 units
Clear objectives should be defined before additional 501 (c) 3 research
units are established.
• A Caution: “not for profit” designation generally requires a
significant amount of additional administrative burden.
• However, with sustained success, such units often become donors!
Session agenda
• Overview (C. Keane) (10 minutes)
• Federal perspective (C. Keane for T. Kalil) (10 minutes)
• Small Center perspective (D. Carder) (10 minutes)
• Large Center perspective (R. McGrath) (10 minutes)
• Industrial perspective (T. Eighmy) (10 minutes)
• Discussion (25 minutes)
Thank you in advance for your attention and
participation!
Government-University-Industry-
National Lab Grand Challenge
Collaborations
Dr. Taylor Eighmy
APLU 2016 CoR Summer Meeting
(Public-Private Partnerships Driving Economic Development)
Innovation Ecosystem:
• “A Preliminary Design” Published January 2013 (NSTC, PCAST)
• The Composite Materials and Structures FOA issued 2/25/2014
• RAMI Bill passed 9/15/2014
• AMP2.0 was issued October 2014
• Administration wants 15 IMI (Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation) by the end of 2016
Innovation Ecosystem:
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) Model:
Manufacturing Innovation Ecosystem Driven by Industry Need • Co-investment/Co-creation • Sustainable business model • Jobs
Government Investment • Federal • State
Industry Investment • OEMS and their supply chains • SMEs
University and Federal Laboratory Researchers • Discovery • Workforce
Innovation Ecosystem:
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Defense (DOD)
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)
One or more open topics
Modular chemical processes intensification
Reduced embodied
energy and decreasing emissions
Innovation Ecosystem:
$259M over five years (2015-2019)
$70M from DOE
$189M in cost share from partners (including $100M in new cash)
Operated by CCS Corp., an independent not-for-profit 501c3
Governed by a board of directors
A wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Tennessee Research Foundation (UTRF)
Incorporated in the State of Tennessee
Headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee
Innovation Ecosystem:
Innovation Ecosystem: • The 150 members are public and private and represent 32 states.
• IACMI has partnered with ACMA, the premiere composites industry association
and Composites One for workforce training capabilities.
State Partner
Geographic Extensions
Members
Interested Parties
Innovation Ecosystem:
Industry, Academia and Government Stakeholders
A partnership of world-class companies and their supply chains:
Top universities: A partnership of outstanding small and medium sized organizations:
Innovation Ecosystem:
Procurement-style cooperative agreement (budget periods/SOPO/milestones)
Industry-driven higher level (TRL 4-7) applied R&D: OEMs and their supply chains
5 Year technical goals: 25% lower cost CF, 50% reduction embodied energy, 80% recylability
Impact goals: energy productivity, reduced life cycle energy consumption, domestic production, job & economic growth
Goals road mappingwhite papersTABBOD/DOEprojects
Sustainability plan for life after the five year federal investment IP management plan Work force development plan
Questions?
Please feel free to contact me: [email protected] (865)974-8701 (office) (806)252-6444 (cell)
Session agenda
• Overview (C. Keane) (10 minutes)
• Federal perspective (C. Keane for T. Kalil) (10 minutes)
• Small Center perspective (D. Carder) (10 minutes)
• Large Center perspective (R. McGrath) (10 minutes)
• Industrial perspective (T. Eighmy) (10 minutes)
• Discussion (25 minutes)
Thank you in advance for your attention and
participation!